Southeast Asians were stereotyped as bolstered by strong values. But when immigrants face grim economic and social conditions, values are not enough.

The Myth of the Model Minority

Southeast Asians were stereotyped as bolstered by strong values. But when immigrants face grim economic and social conditions, values are not enough.

Noy Thrupkaew | April 7, 2002

Mali Keo fled Cambodia with her husband and four children in 1992. Several years later, she was still haunted by searing memories of "the killing fields," the forced-labor camps where millions of Cambodians died, victims of Communist despot Pol Pot's quest for a perfect agrarian society. Because of the brutal beatings she suffered at the hands of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, she was still wracked with physical pain as well. Traumatized and ailing, uneducated, unskilled, and speaking very little English, Mali Keo (a pseudonym assigned by researchers) could barely support her children after her husband abandoned the family.

And now she may not even have public assistance to fall back on, because the 1996 welfare-reform act cut off most federal benefits to immigrants and subsequent amendments have not entirely restored them. In what was supposed to be the land of her salvation, Mali Keo today is severely impoverished. Living in a hard-pressed neighborhood of Philadelphia, she struggles with only mixed success to keep her children out of trouble and in school.

The Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC), an advocacy group in Washington, estimates that more than 2.2 million Southeast Asians now live in the United States. They are the largest group of refugees in the country and the fastest-growing minority. Yet for most policy makers, the plight of the many Mali Keos has been overshadowed by the well-known success of the Asian immigrants who came before and engendered the myth of the "model minority." Indeed, conservatives have exploited this racial stereotype -- arguing that Asians fare well in the United States because of their strong "family values" and work ethic. These values, they say, and not government assistance, are what all minorities need in order to get ahead.

Paradoxically, Southeast Asians -- supposedly part of the model minority -- may be suffering most from the resulting public policies. They have been left in the hands of underfunded community-assistance programs and government agencies that, in one example of well-intentioned incompetence, churn out forms in Khmer and Lao for often illiterate populations. But fueled by outrage over bad services and a fraying social safety-net, Southeast Asian immigrants have started to embrace that most American of activities, political protest -- by pushing for research on their communities, advocating for their rights, and harnessing their political power.

The model-minority myth has persisted in large part because political conservatives are so attached to it. "Asian Americans have become the darlings of the right," said Frank Wu, a law professor at Howard University and the author of Yellow: Race beyond Black and White. "The model-minority myth and its depiction of Asian-American success tells a reassuring story about our society working."

The flip side is also appealing to the right. Because Asian Americans' success stems from their strong families and their dedication to education and hard work, conservatives say, then the poverty of Latinos and African Americans must be explained by their own "values": They are poor because of their nonmarrying, school-skipping, and generally lazy and irresponsible behavior, which government handouts only encourage.

The model-minority myth's "racist love," as author Frank Chin terms it, took hold at a sensitive point in U.S. history: after the 1965 Watts riots and the immigration reforms of that year, which selectively allowed large numbers of educated immigrants into the United States. Highly skilled South and East Asian nurses, doctors, and engineers from countries like India and China began pouring into the United States just as racial tensions were at a fever pitch.

Shortly thereafter, articles like "Success Story of One Minority in the U.S.," published by U.S. News & World Report in 1966, trumpeted: "At a time when it is being proposed that hundreds of billions be spent to uplift Negroes and other minorities, the nation's 300,000 Chinese Americans are moving ahead on their own, with no help from anyone else." Newsweek in 1971 had Asian Americans "outwhiting the whites." And Fortune in 1986 dubbed them a "superminority." As Wu caricatures the model-minority myth in his book:

Asian Americans vindicate the American Dream... . They are living proof of the power of the free market and the absence of racial discrimination. Their good fortune flows from individual self-reliance and community self-sufficiency, not civil-rights activism or government welfare benefits.

A closer look at the data paints another picture, however. If Asian-American households earn more than whites, statistics suggest, it's not because their individual earnings are higher but because Asian Americans live in larger households, with more working adults. In fact, a recent University of Hawaii study found that "most Asian Americans are overeducated compared to whites for the incomes they earn" -- evidence that suggests not "family values" but market discrimination.

What most dramatically skews the data, though, is the fact that about half the population of Asian (or, more precisely, Asian-Pacific Islander) Americans is made up of the highly educated immigrants who began arriving with their families in the 1960s. The plight of refugees from Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, who make up less than 14 percent of Asian Americans, gets lost in the averaging. Yet these refugees, who started arriving in the United States after 1975, differ markedly from the professional-class Chinese and Indian immigrants who started coming 10 years earlier. The Southeast Asians were fleeing wartime persecution and had few resources. And those disadvantages have had devastating effects on their lives in the United States. The most recent census data available show that 47 percent of Cambodians, 66 percent of Hmong (an ethnic group that lived in the mountains of Laos), 67 percent of Laotians, and 34 percent of Vietnamese were impoverished in 1990 -- compared with 10 percent of all Americans and 14 percent of all Asian Americans. Significantly, poverty rates among Southeast Asian Americans were much higher than those of even the "nonmodel" minorities: 21 percent of African Americans and 23 percent of Latinos were poor.

Yet despite the clear inaccuracies created by lumping populations together, the federal government still groups Southeast Asian refugees under the overbroad category of "Asian" for research and funding purposes. "We've labored under the shadow of this model myth for so long," said KaYing Yang, SEARAC's executive director. "There's so little research on us, or we're lumped in with all other Asians, so people don't know the specific needs and contributions of our communities."

To get a sense of those needs, one has to go back to the beginning of the Southeast Asian refugees' story and the circumstances that forced their migration. In 1975, the fall of Saigon sent shock waves throughout Southeast Asia, as communist insurgents toppled U.S.-supported governments in Vietnam and Cambodia. In Laos, where the CIA had trained and funded the Hmong to fight Laotian and Vietnamese communists as U.S. proxies, the communists who took over vowed to purge the country of ethnic Hmong and punish all others who had worked with the U.S. government.

The first refugees to leave Southeast Asia tended to be the most educated and urban, English-speakers with close connections to the U.S. government. One of them was a man who wishes to be identified by the pseudonym John Askulraskul. He spent two years in a Laotian re-education camp -- punishment for his ability to speak English, his having been educated, and, most of all, his status as a former employee of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

"They tried to brainwash you, to subdue you psychologically, to work you to death on two bowls of rice a day," Askulraskul told me recently.

After being released, he decided to flee the country. He, his sister, and his eldest daughter, five and a half years old, slipped into the Mekong River with a few others. Clinging to an inflated garbage bag, Askulraskul swam alongside their boat out of fear that his weight would sink it.

After they arrived on the shores of Thailand, Askulraskul and his daughter were placed in a refugee camp, where they waited to be reunited with his wife and his two other daughters.

It was not to be.

"My wife tried to escape with two small children. But my daughters couldn't make it" -- he paused, drawing a ragged breath -- "because the boat sank."

Askulraskul's wife was swept back to Laos, where she was arrested and placed in jail for a month. She succeeded in her next escape attempt, rejoining her suddenly diminished family.

Eventually, with the help of his former boss at USAID, they moved to Connecticut, where Askulraskul found work helping to resettle other refugees. His wife, who had been an elementary-school teacher, took up teaching English as a second language (ESL) to Laotian refugee children. His daughter adjusted quickly and went to school without incident.

Askulraskul now manages a project that provides services for at-risk Southeast Asian children and their families. "The job I am doing now is not only a job," he said. "It is part of my life and my sacrifice. My daughter is 29 now, and I know raising kids in America is not easy. I cannot save everybody, but there is still something I can do."

Like others among the first wave of refugees, Askulraskul considers himself one of the lucky ones. His education, U.S. ties, and English-language ability -- everything that set off the tragic chain of events that culminated in his daughters' deaths -- proved enormously helpful once he was in the United States.

But the majority of refugees from Southeast Asia had no such advantages. Subsequent waves frequently hailed from rural areas and lacked both financial resources and formal schooling. Their psychological scars were even deeper than the first group's, from their longer years in squalid refugee camps or the killing fields. The ethnic Chinese who began arriving from Vietnam had faced harsh discrimination as well, and the Amerasians -- the children of Vietnamese women and U.S. soldiers -- had lived for years as pariahs.

Once here, these refugees often found themselves trapped in poverty, providing low-cost labor, and receiving no health or other benefits, while their lack of schooling made decent jobs almost impossible to come by. In 1990, two-thirds of Cambodian, Laotian, and Hmong adults in America had less than a high-school education -- compared with 14 percent of whites, 25 percent of African Americans, 45 percent of Latinos, and 15 percent of the general Asian-American population. Before the welfare-reform law cut many of them off, nearly 30 percent of Southeast Asian Americans were on welfare -- the highest participation rate of any ethnic group. And having such meager incomes, they usually lived in the worst neighborhoods, with the attendant crime, gang problems, and poor schools.

But shouldn't the touted Asian dedication to schooling have overcome these disadvantages, lifting the refugees' children out of poverty and keeping them off the streets? Unfortunately, it didn't. "There is still a high number of dropouts for Southeast Asians," Yang said. "And if they do graduate, there is a low number going on to higher education."

Their parents' difficulty in navigating American school systems may contribute to the problem. "The parents' lack of education leads to a lack of role models and guidance. Without those things, youth can turn to delinquent behavior and in some very extreme cases, gangs, instead of devoting themselves to education," said Narin Sihavong, director of SEARAC's Successful New Americans Project, which interviewed Mali Keo. "This underscores the need for Southeast Asian school administrators or counselors who can be role models, ease the cultural barrier, and serve as a bridge to their parents."

"Sometimes families have to choose between education and employment, especially when money is tight," said Porthira Chimm, a former SEARAC project director. "And unfortunately, immediate money concerns often win out."

The picture that emerges -- of high welfare participation and dropout rates, low levels of education and income -- is startlingly similar to the situation of the poorest members of "nonmodel" minority groups. Southeast Asians, Latinos, and African Americans also have in common significant numbers of single-parent families. Largely as a result of the killing fields, nearly a quarter of Cambodian households are headed by single women. Other Southeast Asian families have similar stories. Sihavong's mother, for example, raised him and his five siblings on her own while his father was imprisoned in a Laotian re-education camp.

No matter how "traditional" Southeast Asians may be, they share the fate of other people of color when they are denied access to good education, safe neighborhoods, and jobs that provide a living wage and benefits. But for the sake of preserving the model-minority myth, conservative policy makers have largely ignored the needs of Southeast Asian communities.

One such need is for psychological care. Wartime trauma and "lack of English proficiency, acculturative stress, prejudice, discrimination, and racial hate crimes" place Southeast Asians "at risk for emotional and behavioral problems," according to the U.S. surgeon general's 2001 report on race and mental health. One random sample of Cambodian adults found that 45 percent had post-traumatic stress disorder and 51 percent suffered from depression.

John Askulraskul's past reflects trauma as well, but his education, English-language ability, and U.S. connections helped level the playing field. Less fortunate refugees need literacy training and language assistance. They also need social supports like welfare and strong community-assistance groups. But misled by the model-minority myth, many government agencies seem to be unaware that Southeast Asians require their services, and officials have done little to find these needy refugees or accommodate them. Considering that nearly two-thirds of Southeast Asians say they do not speak English very well and more than 50 percent live in linguistically isolated ethnic enclaves, the lack of outreach and translators effectively denies them many public services.

The problem extends beyond antipoverty programs, as Mali Keo's story illustrates. After her husband left her, she formed a relationship with another man and had two more children. But he beat the family for years, until she asked an organization that served Cambodian refugees to help her file a restraining order. If she had known that a shelter was available, she told her interviewer, even one without Khmer-speaking counselors, she would have escaped much earlier.

Where the government hasn't turned a blind eye, it has often wielded an iron fist. The welfare-reform law of 1996, which cut off welfare, SSI, and food-stamp benefits for most noncitizens -- even those who are legal permanent residents -- sent Southeast Asian communities into an uproar. Several elderly Hmong in California committed suicide, fearing that they would become burdens to their families. Meanwhile, the lack of literacy programs prevented (and still does prevent) many refugees from passing the written test that would gain them citizenship and the right to public assistance.

"We achieved welfare reform on the backs of newcomers," Frank Wu said. "People said that 'outsiders' don't have a claim to the body politic, and even liberals say we should care for 'our own' first." Few seemed to ask the question posed by sociologist Donald Hernandez: "What responsibility do we have to ensure a basic standard of living for immigrants who have fled their countries as a result of the American government's economic, military, and political involvement there?"

But welfare reform also had a second effect. "It was such a shocking event, it completely galvanized the Southeast Asian community," said Karen Narasaki, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. "In different Asian cultures, you have 'the crab who crawls out of the bucket gets pulled back' [and] 'the nail that sticks out gets pounded down.' But in the United States, 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease,' and people had to learn that."

The learning process has been a difficult one. At first, because of their past negative experiences with the United States and their homeland governments, many Southeast Asians feared political involvement. Many saw themselves as noncitizens and second-class "outsiders" with a precarious standing in the United States. But as they have grown more familiar with this country, even noncitizens have started to think of themselves less as refugees in a temporary home and more as "new Americans" who are entitled to shape their destinies through political engagement.

The energy for this new activism grew out of the mutual-assistance associations (MAAs) that have taken root in various Southeast Asian communities. Primarily staffed by people like Askulraskul -- the more successful members of the ethnic groups they serve -- MAAs form the backbone of support for Southeast Asians, providing, among many other things, child care, job training, school liaisons, and assistance with navigating government bureaucracies.

But the MAAs are facing problems of their own. The funding they used to get from the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement is dwindling. In 1996 new federal guidelines mandated that these funds go exclusively to organizations serving the most recent refugees. (In response, several Southeast Asian MAAs have tried to stay afloat by offering their services to newer refugees from places like Ethiopia and Iraq.) As for outside funding, only 0.3 percent of all philanthropic aid goes to groups that work specifically with Asian-American populations, according to the 1998 edition of Foundation Giving. "A lot of people in philanthropy think [that Asians] are doing so well, they don't need help," Narasaki said.

Despite these problems, MAAs and national advocacy organizations like SEARAC have won limited restorations of benefits and food stamps for immigrants. And a significant victory came in 2000, when legislation sponsored by Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone was adopted: It will allow Hmong veterans -- or their widows -- from America's "secret war" in Laos to take the U.S. citizenship test in Hmong, with a translator.

One key to the MAAs' success is their networking with other minority-advocacy groups, says Sandy Dang, executive director of Asian American LEAD, an organization based in Washington, that provides a range of services for Vietnamese Americans, including ESL classes, youth mentoring, and parent-support groups.

When Dang founded the organization, she didn't know how to write grant proposals, so she asked the director of a nearby youth center for Latin Americans to provide guidance. "The Latino organizations have a lot of empathy for people starting out," she said. "They understand the refugee-immigrant experience.

"Disadvantaged people share a lot in common," Dang continued, "and we have to help each other. People who are empowered in this country like to play us off each other, like with the model-minority myth. They need the poor and disadvantaged to fight each other. Because if we unite, we can make it difficult for them."

Southeast Asians are disproving the model-minority myth not just with their difficult lives but with their growing insistence that it takes more than "traditional values" and "personal responsibility" to survive in this country. It takes social supports and participation in the legacy of civil rights activism as well.

The refugees and their children are forging their identities as new Americans and are starting to emerge as a political force. At first, Yang said, "we had no time to think about anything else but our communities -- and no one was thinking about us. But now we know that what we were grappling with [affects both] me and my neighbor, who might be poor black, Latino, or Asian. We are no longer refugees, we are Americans. And we know what being 'successful' is: It's being someone who is truly aware of the meaning of freedom to speak out."

Hollywood likes to think themselves as being the arbiter of what sells and what is popular. For Hollywood, ultimately, they do not delve in truth or positive, multi-faceted images of other people except for white people, because white is what is considered as default. Hollywood normalizes white, and Americans buy into it.

I, however, do not think that this situation would change if other minorities were to have power in Hollywood. To be honest, I think that they would normalize themselves and themselves ONLY, while making others into stereotypes. The problem is, when you talk about racism, you often get the issues of white denial.

I'm glad you posted these articles, because they pretty much show the truth of how Hollywood degrades minorities like it's some type of pass time.

To be honest, I'm tired of the black women being portrayed as a loud-mouthed, obese, vulgar, big booty, Ebonics speaking, harlot. Why is it that we can't be portrayed in a positive light? Why dose the black person constantly die in the movie, yet he's usually the one who chooses the wises option?

Hollywood likes to think themselves as being the arbiter of what sells and what is popular. For Hollywood, ultimately, they do not delve in truth or positive, multi-faceted images of other people except for white people, because white is what is considered as default. Hollywood normalizes white, and Americans buy into it.

I, however, do not think that this situation would change if other minorities were to have power in Hollywood. To be honest, I think that they would normalize themselves and themselves ONLY, while making others into stereotypes. The problem is, when you talk about racism, you often get the issues of white denial.

I totally agree with you!

All shit. Seriously, why is it that its ALWAYS the whites fault for inflicting racism on other races? It could always be the other way!

Hollywood likes to think themselves as being the arbiter of what sells and what is popular. For Hollywood, ultimately, they do not delve in truth or positive, multi-faceted images of other people except for white people, because white is what is considered as default. Hollywood normalizes white, and Americans buy into it.

I, however, do not think that this situation would change if other minorities were to have power in Hollywood. To be honest, I think that they would normalize themselves and themselves ONLY, while making others into stereotypes. The problem is, when you talk about racism, you often get the issues of white denial.

I totally agree with you!

All shit. Seriously, why is it that its ALWAYS the whites fault for inflicting racism on other races?It could always be the other way!

Because sociologically speaking, it's both. When any group with an unrealistic sense of superiority complex/attitude/prejudice caused by their unreasonable fear of another group, can make them discriminate the said group. While biologically speaking humanity is naturally born racist free.

Hollywood likes to think themselves as being the arbiter of what sells and what is popular. For Hollywood, ultimately, they do not delve in truth or positive, multi-faceted images of other people except for white people, because white is what is considered as default. Hollywood normalizes white, and Americans buy into it.

I, however, do not think that this situation would change if other minorities were to have power in Hollywood. To be honest, I think that they would normalize themselves and themselves ONLY, while making others into stereotypes. The problem is, when you talk about racism, you often get the issues of white denial.

I totally agree with you!

All shit. Seriously, why is it that its ALWAYS the whites fault for inflicting racism on other races? It could always be the other way!

okay as one of the 'white' males (actually I'm red, just very pale) who DOESN'T run the world. it's irritating when ... I have the blame for the actions of those who DO run the world foisted upon me.

That doesn't change the fact that those in power are White, male, and old. IF someone is racist towards you but has no power. What do you care? It's the racist, sexist, ageist, money-centred policies of those in power that HURT.

Power comes in many forms. White Males don't have lobby groups to make advertisers think twice about using them as the foils for their humour. We won't riot for being protrayed as dweebs like that annoying guy in the old Canadian Tire Commercials. We don't collectively boycott Tim Horton's for their ad campaigns that constantly play the guy as a scheming Dumbass.

So well that's why it's always 'whitey's' fault. because the guys who make racism HURT are white. sorry that's how it is.

But power is relative. I imagine being the minority white or biracial guy in a predominantly black high school would be lacking in joy. I've heard tales from the 'white' members of a variety of mixed marriages who come back from aboard with greater understanding of the pervasiveness and insidiousness of racism after the experience the shoe on the other foot in a foreign country.

And here in Canada it can be quite illuminating to be a 'stealth' Native.

Off the Deep End: Reflections on Private Clubs, Public Prejudice and Racism 2.0
by Tim Wise

July 9, 2009, 6:46 pm

On the one hand, racism is so deeply embedded in the history and structure of the United States, that it shouldn't be particularly surprising when a story emerges, indicating that indeed, that racism has bubbled to the surface yet again.

But on the other hand, sometimes a story finds its way into the public realm, which is of such a profoundly disturbing nature, that you can't help but do a double-take: the kind of story that makes you go, huh? What the hell did I just read? Like for sure you must have seen that headline wrong. Like you must have been teleported back in time fifty years or more, to a period when folks didn't even feel the need to pretend they were racially enlightened. Like you must be hallucinating, or perhaps this is a satire you're reading, maybe something from The Onion? And then you realize, nope, it's for real.

And so it was yesterday, when a swim club on the outskirts of Philadelphia made the news after expelling from their pool a summer camp group of approximately sixty kids of color from the city. Not because they had done anything wrong--no bad behavior, no inappropriate conduct, nothing like that, as they had just arrived and most of the children hadn't even had a chance to enter the pool yet--and not because they had crashed the private environs uninvited (the camp had paid over $1900 for the right to swim there once a week), but because, as club president, John Duesler explained in a letter: the kids would "change the complexion and atmosphere" of the club. Got that? The complexion.

Of course, Duesler, about whom I'll have more to say in a minute, insists that the decision wasn't racial. Yet several of the youth denied access to the pool overheard a white club member openly complaining about the arrival of the "black kids," and all but a few of the white children swimming when they arrived were yanked from the pool by their parents, in a move reminiscent of the 1950s, suggesting that the club's racism is not some inanimate institutional force, but a lived reality for many of its white members as well. One woman at the club, for instance, fretted openly that the black kids might "do something" to her child. Of course, because that's what fifth graders from the 'hood do: they roll out to the 'burbs, pretending to be interested in swimming, when really, the plan is to find some white kids and cut 'em the hell up, in some kinda pee-wee gang initiation ritual. Of course.

That the expulsion was racial is beyond dispute, or at least should be. The club knew how many kids were going to be there when they accepted the membership fee, so they can't claim they were overwhelmed by the size of the group, although they seem to be offering that as their excuse now that the story has gone public. Yet to read the comments left underneath the story at the Philly area NBC affiliate's webpage, which was first to break the news, leaves one with the distinct impression that for a lot of white folks, there is no need for the club to devise a cover story. Rather, a disturbing number of white posters seem positively exultant that these children--who had done nothing wrong except, apparently, to be born and to live in North Philadelphia--were booted from the club.

To wit, among these postings, one finds regular and repeated reference to the "animals" from the city, others who claim that blacks don't care for their own neighborhoods, and so, presumably, a group of black children shouldn't be let into a white one, and comments to the effect that if blacks want to be respected (and not discriminated against) they must first "clean up their act." In other words, whites are entitled to view all black people, even 8 year olds, through the lens of presumed group pathology, all because some in the black community engage in undesirable behavior. By which logic, of course, we should also presume that all whites are corporate criminals, because of the actions of Ken Lay, or Bernie Madoff, or the Savings and Loan bandits from the 80s.

Or perhaps that all white men should be presumed serial killers because of Manson, Bundy, Gacy, or dozens of others, or pederasts, like the sick-ass high ranking staffer at Duke University who was advertising for people to come and rape his 5-year old adopted black child, as he had already done repeatedly.

Perhaps it would be fair to think all whites to be semi-illiterate, because of, say, George W. Bush, or Sarah Palin, or to insinuate that white boys are all sociopathic animal mutilators because, as with a recent case in South Florida, most of the whack jobs who butcher kittens end up being, well, ya know, white boys. Or perhaps that whites are inherently predisposed to cannibalism or that white females should be banned from teaching because of the threat they pose to their students: after all, well over a hundred white female teachers have been busted for preying upon underage kids in recent years, and indeed the perps have been white in over 93 percent of all known cases.

But of course, none of those who would defend their racism in the swim club case--and who would assure us it is "rational" to fear black kids--would find any of the above examples nearly as logical. This, despite the statistical and anecdotal evidence that could be brought to bear in each case to make sense of crass generalizations in those instances too. No, they reserve their "rational discrimination" for the dark-skinned. Indeed, to read their messages is to see racism in the raw. The kind of thing so many pundits have assured us is no longer a problem in America, now that we've entered the "post-racial" era of Barack Obama.

Oh, and speaking of which, here's the kicker: remember the above-mentioned club President? The one concerned about how the black kids might change the complexion of the place? John Duesler? Yeah, well, turns out, Duesler is no knuckle-dragging right winger. He's no Klansman. Actually, he was a supporter of President Obama, and helped coordinate a blood drive in town to celebrate the Presidential inauguration. Even worse, he's the chairman of Peace-Action Philadelphia: a collection of presumably progressive and even leftist types. This is what I speak of as Racism 2.0 in my book, Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama: the kind of racism that allows some whites to vote for Obama, and to carve out exceptions for those black and brown folks who make us comfortable, but to maintain fundamentally hostile views towards the larger communities of color from which these exceptions come. In other words, the kind of racism that says, black folks are fine, so long as they went to Harvard Law, speak a certain way, dress a certain way, and pander to our tastes. But for the rest of y'all, oh hell no.

In light of this latest incident, let me make the following points, and let me make them in the clearest terms possible:

1. I bet'not hear one more Northerner lecture me, ever about the South again. We know perfectly well our history down here. 'Bout time you get clear on yours. This wasn't Philadelphia, Mississippi partner, it was the city of brotherly-frickin'-love, so you and Rocky had best go figure it out, while the rest of us watch for a while. And for y'all in Boston, and Bensonhurst, and Greenwich-damn-Village, feel free to join in. Let us know what you learn about yourself. We got phones down here now, and even, occasionally, internet access, so give us a holler when you come up with something noteworthy.

2. I bet'not hear one more white liberal act like racism is the province of the right. Yes, racism itself is a decidedly reactionary philosophy, but it's one that has long been embedded in the white psyche, and white folks' worldview. As Joe Feagin explains in his newest book, the white racial frame has long influenced how white Americans, irrespective of broader political views, view black and brown folks, and this latest incident only demonstrates that with a vengeance. It is the white racial frame that frames, pun very much intended, blacks--even children--as pathological, socially dysfunctional, likely to misbehave, and unworthy of the opportunities enjoyed by whites. It is the white racial frame that serves to rationalize every injustice done to persons of color, no matter how blatant.

And is that white racial frame which must be thoroughly challenged, exploded, destroyed, eradicated, before this nation can ever hope to achieve racial equity, or even the most rudimentary levels of social justice. So for those nice white liberals who thought voting for Barack Obama was gonna be their get-out-of-jail-free card the next time somebody brought up the subject of racism--sorta like a modern day version of "some of my best friends are black"--think again.

Oh, and finally, for those who insist on changing the subject with regard to this pool story, and insisting that "well, ya know, it is a private club and so they can do whatever they want," you miss the point, and miss it quite badly. First, if a private club advertises memberships to the public, as the Valley Club did, there is an open question as to just how private it actually is. It may indeed be far less so than many claim, and may be bound by civil rights laws just as surely as a municipally owned facility would be. But more to the point, it doesn't matter. This is not an issue about the right of the club to be racist. It is a question about whether it is right for them to be such. One may have the right to do lots of things. I have the right to stand on a corner and shout racial slurs at passersby of color, I suppose. I have a right to publish hate literature. I have a right to join the Klan. In short, I have a "right" to be as racist as I wanna be. But if I decide to do any of those things, you have the right, and more--the obligation--to call me an asshole. And a racist asshole at that. And to make my life miserable.

So let us exercise our rights, and do just that to the folks at The Valley Club. You can reach them via e-mail at: [email protected] Or you can call them at: 215-947-0700. Their voice mail was full last time I checked (for reasons I think I can imagine), but at some point they'll clear it out, at which point we should fill it up again. Or, if you're white and feeling really creative, perhaps you can pay for a temporary membership and then go swimming. Just make sure to drink a lot of water before you go, and all go together. And then get in the pool, and then, well, I think you know the rest. It would be the world's first piss-in,* and it would serve them right.

* I cannot take credit for the piss-in idea. This concept is borrowed, lovingly, from long-time social justice and antiracist activist/educator, Sharon Martinas, to whom all praise is due for her creativity and sense of humor in the face of injustice: a critical virtue in difficult times.

Tim Wise is the author of four books on race and racism. His website is timwise.org. He blogs at redroom.com and can be reached via e-mail at [email protected]

An example of covert Anti-Japanese racism making up stereotypes and using racial slurs similar to the n world towards people who dare to watch movies, cartoons and listen to Music from Japan(and sometimes from the rest of Asia)

Whilst we go on about criticizing "White" Hollywood, may I suggest a little tidbit to add to the conversation?

Look at Indian or Japanese or any other form of film. White actors are seldom if EVER seen in "bollywood" or Asian films. Now despite being "white", I do watch asian films. Being fluent in Cantonese and Mandarin opened up a whole new world of cinema for me to enjoy. Japanese I just watch because they often have highly entertaining films. As for Indian films? My neighbourhood and friends are mainly Punjabi. It's only natural that I have seen some. Infact, Taare Zameen Par is one of the few films I consider actively good (especially if you are interested in special needs/psychology). So in a sense, I have seen quite a great deal of cinema outside of Hollywood. And while I watched these films, it is apparent that white actors are often not in them at all or in rather useless/small roles. Does this make them racist? Only as racist as Hollywood. The way I see it, most people look at this wrong. Asian films are marketed at who? Asians. Therefore whites or blacks are seldom used as they are not the target consumer. Same thing goes for "white" Hollywood. Except the consumer this time is 80% white. Logically, they are going to aim their market at the "white" people. It's not about racism or racist choice of roles such as excluding or stereotyping cultures and people. It's about money and pleasing the statistical majority.

Hollywood likes to think themselves as being the arbiter of what sells and what is popular. For Hollywood, ultimately, they do not delve in truth or positive, multi-faceted images of other people except for white people, because white is what is considered as default. Hollywood normalizes white, and Americans buy into it.

I, however, do not think that this situation would change if other minorities were to have power in Hollywood. To be honest, I think that they would normalize themselves and themselves ONLY, while making others into stereotypes. The problem is, when you talk about racism, you often get the issues of white denial.

I totally agree with you!

All shit. Seriously, why is it that its ALWAYS the whites fault for inflicting racism on other races?It could always be the other way!

Because sociologically speaking, it's both. When any group with an unrealistic sense of superiority complex/attitude/prejudice caused by their unreasonable fear of another group, can make them discriminate the said group. While biologically speaking humanity is naturally born racist free.

Dom, I agree with you for once. Human's aren't born racist. It's a societal concept.

Anybody that take horse manure seriously in Hollywood needs help. To be all struck by self-prompting a-holes then want privacy double talk to me. So there good at pretending, there somebody that there not be deal they can be entertaining but that it. To take them seriously no way I still think Jane Fonda should have been tried for treason, for her action in north. Otherwise there self-indulgent and they think their important to who I guess to people that like gossip.

Whilst we go on about criticizing "White" Hollywood, may I suggest a little tidbit to add to the conversation?

Look at Indian or Japanese or any other form of film. White actors are seldom if EVER seen in "bollywood" or Asian films. Now despite being "white", I do watch asian films. Being fluent in Cantonese and Mandarin opened up a whole new world of cinema for me to enjoy. Japanese I just watch because they often have highly entertaining films. As for Indian films? My neighbourhood and friends are mainly Punjabi. It's only natural that I have seen some. Infact, Taare Zameen Par is one of the few films I consider actively good (especially if you are interested in special needs/psychology). So in a sense, I have seen quite a great deal of cinema outside of Hollywood. And while I watched these films, it is apparent that white actors are often not in them at all or in rather useless/small roles. Does this make them racist?]
Only as racist as Hollywood. The way I see it, most people look at this wrong. Asian films are marketed at who? Asians. Therefore whites or blacks are seldom used as they are not the target consumer. Same thing goes for "white" Hollywood. Except the consumer this time is 80% white. Logically, they are going to aim their market at the "white" people. It's not about racism or racist choice of roles such as excluding or stereotyping cultures and people. It's about money and pleasing the statistical majority.

Asian films don't create stereotypes of white and non-asian people

Asian films don't enagage in racebending (which hollywood love to do with yellowfacings) using native asians to play whites and other non-asians can you find an asian movie where asian actors employed in racebending movies? why are you defending hollywood racism

Asians don't use the racist excuse you are using to market films. many Asian films which are marketed to overseas and non-asians living abroad have subtitles and yes more asian movies and dramas are being marketed to overseas audiences on Channels like TV Japan and KBS world which are available on north american cable with a digital cable box.

quit defending and enjoying racism using the old marketing to whites nonsense

and speaking of marketing Hollywood assumed that white audiences cannot handle non-whites in leading roles which is a RACIST assumption. w a current example is the new Genghis Khan movie where a white actor is playing Genghis Khan a mongolian/east asian. why can't hollywooduse an East Asian american actor to play Khan? hollywood want to live in Asia and Asian culture settings where Asians are not to be seen and you defending this racist madness?